In a land­mark first, Chi­nese sci­en­tist claims birth of ge­net­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied ba­bies — and all hell breaks loose

A Chi­nese re­searcher is claim­ing that he cre­at­ed the first-ever ge­net­i­cal­ly edit­ed ba­bies us­ing CRISPR/Cas9 tools that have now be­come a com­mon fea­ture in labs around the world. And the news trig­gered a tem­pest in sci­en­tif­ic cir­cles the world over as re­searchers who have been us­ing gene-edit­ing tech to re­fine plants and forge new ther­a­pies try to puz­zle out the stun­ning —if true — de­vel­op­ment fea­tured on YouTube.

Sev­er­al ex­perts — in­clud­ing co-in­ven­tor Feng Zhang — crit­i­cized the ex­per­i­ment, rais­ing po­ten­tial safe­ty is­sues that could arise as a re­sult of the ge­net­ic tin­ker­ing. And Rice Uni­ver­si­ty, where a pro­fes­sor was re­port­ed­ly in­volved, is in­ves­ti­gat­ing.

The sci­en­tist who claimed cred­it for the work, though, of­fered a sun­ny per­spec­tive on YouTube.

“Two beau­ti­ful Chi­nese girls named Lu­lu and Nana came cry­ing in­to the world as healthy as any oth­er ba­bies a few weeks ago,” said Shen­zhen-based re­searcher Jiankui He in the YouTube video and WeChat post. But this was no av­er­age birth. The re­searcher’s un­ver­i­fied claim is that the twins’ em­bryos have been ge­net­i­cal­ly en­gi­neered with CRISPR to de­com­mis­sion CCR5, a gene used by HIV as a back door in­to a cell.

Ahead of an in­ter­na­tion­al con­fer­ence on gene edit­ing ex­pect­ed to com­mence on Tues­day in Hong Kong, He said he had al­tered em­bryos for sev­en cou­ples dur­ing fer­til­i­ty treat­ments, with one preg­nan­cy re­sult­ing thus far. But the le­git­i­ma­cy of the project is be­ing in­ves­ti­gat­ed. The South­ern Uni­ver­si­ty of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy in Shen­zhen, with which He is af­fil­i­at­ed, is­sued a state­ment say­ing it was “deeply shocked” and un­aware of his re­search project which they con­sid­er a “se­ri­ous vi­o­la­tion of aca­d­e­m­ic ethics and stan­dards.” The uni­ver­si­ty added He has been on leave with­out pay since Feb­ru­ary.

He has claimed his aim was not to cure or pre­vent an in­her­it­ed dis­ease, but to con­fer a trait that is nat­u­ral­ly com­mon in parts of North­ern Eu­rope — an abil­i­ty to re­sist an HIV in­fec­tion from the AIDS virus. But the choice to ed­it this CCR5 gene, the block­ade of which may al­so be ef­fec­tive in thwart­ing cholera and small­pox, im­me­di­ate­ly trig­gered an on­line up­roar over the use of CRISPR to al­ter DNA in a way that could be passed down for gen­er­a­tions to come.

MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Re­view’s An­to­nio Re­gal­a­do point­ed out this could be par­tic­u­lar­ly con­tro­ver­sial be­cause there are eas­i­er and cheap­er ways to pre­vent HIV in­fec­tion, or in­deed sup­press it. Edit­ing em­bryos dur­ing IVF will al­so be ex­pen­sive and in­volve tech­nol­o­gy out of reach for poor­er pock­ets of the world where HIV is ubiq­ui­tous.

Some are al­so sug­gest­ing the sto­ry rais­es oth­er thorny ques­tions. Im­pe­r­i­al Col­lege in­ves­ti­ga­tor Tom El­lis not­ed:

Al­though there is sci­en­tif­ic con­sen­sus that gene edit­ing should not be em­ployed to make “de­sign­er ba­bies” en­dowed with en­hanced phys­i­cal fea­tures or in­tel­lec­tu­al traits, the ju­ry is out on to what de­gree sci­ence should in­ter­fere with na­ture to pre­vent, treat or cure dis­ease.

In ad­di­tion to Chi­na, lab­o­ra­to­ry re­search is un­der­way in Swe­den and the UK, in­ves­ti­gat­ing the po­ten­tial of gene-edit­ing in hu­man em­bryos. But in the Unit­ed States it’s a po­lit­i­cal­ly charged propo­si­tion that has won the nar­row en­dorse­ment of the Na­tion­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, which last year rec­om­mend­ed that germ-line mod­i­fi­ca­tion of hu­mans was jus­ti­fied in some cir­cum­stances, such as pre­vent­ing the birth of chil­dren with se­ri­ous dis­eases. This rec­om­men­da­tion will like­ly fall on deaf ears, as sec­tions of the pub­lic ve­he­ment­ly op­pose such in­ter­fer­ence on re­li­gious grounds. In fact such mod­i­fi­ca­tions are prac­ti­cal­ly out of the ques­tion — with laws in place pro­hibit­ing the FDA from even con­sid­er­ing pro­pos­als to cre­ate ge­net­i­cal­ly-edit­ed off­spring.

The promise of CRISPR/Cas9 edit­ing has long been her­ald­ed. How­ev­er, ex­per­i­men­ta­tion with the pro­ce­dure has yield­ed sig­nif­i­cant safe­ty con­cerns. Da­ta pre­sent­ed ear­li­er this year sug­gest that the tool, which is es­sen­tial­ly a pair of mol­e­c­u­lar scis­sors, may in­ad­ver­tent­ly in­crease can­cer risk in some cells, or in­tro­duce ac­ci­den­tal mu­ta­tions — is­sues that could ham­per the de­vel­op­ment of gene-edit­ing ther­a­pies cham­pi­oned by com­pa­nies such as CRISPR Ther­a­peu­tics $CR­SP, Ed­i­tas Med­i­cine $ED­IT and In­tel­lia Ther­a­peu­tics $NT­LA.

“The ge­net­ic edit­ing of a speck-size hu­man em­bryo car­ries sig­nif­i­cant risks, in­clud­ing the risks of in­tro­duc­ing un­want­ed mu­ta­tions or yield­ing a ba­by whose body is com­posed of some edit­ed and some unedit­ed cells. Da­ta on the Chi­nese tri­al site in­di­cate that one of the fe­tus­es is a ‘mo­sa­ic’ of cells that had been edit­ed in dif­fer­ent ways,” Re­gal­a­do un­der­scored in his ar­ti­cle.

He’s project in­volved cou­ples in which the men had HIV but the women did not, and the goal was to pre­vent their chil­dren from suf­fer­ing the same fate.

Ac­cord­ing to the AP re­port, He said that in one twin, both copies of the in­tend­ed gene had been al­tered, while in the oth­er twin, just one copy had been dis­abled — and that there was no ev­i­dence of harm to any oth­er genes. Hu­mans with one copy of the gene can still be in­fect­ed with HIV.

The edit­ing oc­curred dur­ing IVF — first, the sperm was sep­a­rat­ed from the se­men where HIV is known to linger. Then, a sin­gle sperm was placed in­to a soli­tary egg to cre­ate an em­bryo when the gene-edit­ing tool was em­ployed. Cou­ples re­cruit­ed to the study were giv­en free fer­til­i­ty treat­ment in re­turn for their par­tic­i­pa­tion and of­fered the choice to use ei­ther edit­ed or non-edit­ed em­bryos for preg­nan­cy at­tempts. Over­all, 16 of 22 em­bryos were edit­ed, and 11 em­bryos were used in 6 im­plant at­tempts be­fore the twin preg­nan­cy was re­al­ized, He told the AP.

He, who is al­so a founder of a DNA se­quenc­ing com­pa­ny Di­rect Ge­nomics, ob­tained in­formed con­sent from par­tic­i­pants call­ing the study an “AIDS vac­cine de­vel­op­ment project.” How­ev­er, in his ap­pli­ca­tion form seek­ing eth­i­cal ap­proval, he dubbed it a CCR5 gene edit­ing project.

Press re­ports tied his work to Rice Uni­ver­si­ty’s Michael Deem, who now will have to an­swer for what, ex­act­ly, they did. Rice Uni­ver­si­ty was quick to launch its own probe. They not­ed:

Re­cent press re­ports de­scribe a case of ge­nom­ic edit­ing of hu­man em­bryos in Chi­na. These re­ports in­clude a de­scrip­tion of in­volve­ment by Dr. Michael Deem, a pro­fes­sor of bio­engi­neer­ing at Rice Uni­ver­si­ty. This re­search rais­es trou­bling sci­en­tif­ic, le­gal and eth­i­cal ques­tions.  Rice of­fers the fol­low­ing state­ment:

  1. Rice had no knowl­edge of this work.

  2. To Rice’s knowl­edge, none of the clin­i­cal work was per­formed in the Unit­ed States.

  3. Re­gard­less of where it was con­duct­ed, this work as de­scribed in press re­ports, vi­o­lates sci­en­tif­ic con­duct guide­lines and is in­con­sis­tent with eth­i­cal norms of the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty and Rice Uni­ver­si­ty.

  4. We have be­gun a full in­ves­ti­ga­tion of Dr. Deem’s in­volve­ment in this re­search.

And two founders of CRISPR were al­so quick to note their own prob­lems with the Chi­na em­bryo project.

The Broad In­sti­tute’s Feng Zhang, a co-in­ven­tor of the tech­nol­o­gy, had this to say:

Al­though I ap­pre­ci­ate the glob­al threat posed by HIV, at this stage, the risks of edit­ing em­bryos to knock out CCR5 seem to out­weigh the po­ten­tial ben­e­fits, not to men­tion that knock­ing out of CCR5 will like­ly ren­der a per­son much more sus­cep­ti­ble for West Nile Virus. Just as im­por­tant, there are al­ready com­mon and high­ly-ef­fec­tive meth­ods to pre­vent trans­mis­sion of HIV from a par­ent to an un­born child.

Giv­en the cur­rent ear­ly state of genome edit­ing tech­nol­o­gy, I’m in fa­vor of a mora­to­ri­um on im­plan­ta­tion of edit­ed em­bryos, which seems to be the in­ten­tion of the CCR5 tri­al, un­til we have come up with a thought­ful set of safe­ty re­quire­ments first.

Not on­ly do I see this as risky, but I am al­so deeply con­cerned about the lack of trans­paren­cy sur­round­ing this tri­al.


Im­age: Jiankui He. THE HE LAB via YOUTUBE

Mi­no­ryx and Sper­o­genix ink an ex­clu­sive li­cense agree­ment to de­vel­op and com­mer­cial­ize lerigli­ta­zone in Chi­na

September 23, 2020 – Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai (China) and Mataró, Barcelona (Spain)  

Minoryx will receive an upfront and milestone payments of up to $78 million, as well as double digit royalties on annual net sales 

Sperogenix will receive exclusive rights to develop and commercialize leriglitazone for the treatment of X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (X-ALD), a rare life-threatening neurological condition

Secretary of health and human services Alex Azar speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House (Photo: AFP)

Trump’s HHS claims ab­solute au­thor­i­ty over the FDA, clear­ing path to a vac­cine EUA

The top career staff at the FDA has vowed not to let politics overrule science when looking at vaccine data this fall. But Alex Azar, who happens to be their boss’s boss, apparently won’t even give them a chance to stand in the way.

In a new memorandum issued Tuesday last week, the HHS chief stripped the FDA and other health agencies under his purview of their rule making ability, asserting all such power “is reserved to the Secretary.” Sheila Kaplan of the New York Times first obtained and reported the details of the September 15 bulletin.

FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn at the White House (AP Images)

Un­der fire, FDA to is­sue stricter guid­ance for Covid-19 vac­cine EUA this week — re­port

The FDA has been insisting for months that a Covid-19 vaccine had to be at least 50% effective – a measure of transparency meant to shore public trust in the agency and in a vaccine that had been brought forward at record speed and record political pressure. But now, with concerns of a Trump-driven authorization arriving before the election, the agency may be raising the bar.

The FDA is set to release new guidance that would raise safety and efficacy requirements for a vaccine EUA above earlier guidance and above the criteria used for convalescent plasma or hydroxychloroquine, The Washington Post reported. Experts say this significantly lowers the odds of an approval before the election on November 3, which Trump has promised despite vocal concerns from public health officials, and could help shore up public trust in the agency and any eventual vaccine.

PhII Alzheimer's fail­ure deals new blow to Roche, AC Im­mune — but the tau hy­poth­e­sis is far from dead

The leading anti-tau antibody has failed its first Phase II testing, casting a shadow on a popular target (just trailing amyloid beta) for Alzheimer’s disease.

Roche and AC Immune are quick to acknowledge disappointment in the topline readout, which suggested that semorinemab did not reduce cognitive decline among patients with early Alzheimer’s disease, who are either just starting to have symptoms or have mild manifestations.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Covid-19 roundup: J&J be­gins piv­otal Phase III tri­al for vac­cine; Con­tro­ver­sial hu­man chal­lenge tri­als to be­gin in Lon­don — re­port

Johnson & Johnson announced it’s beginning a pivotal Phase III trial for its Covid-19 candidate, JNJ-78436735 — the first single-dose vaccine in this stage.

The Phase III trial, dubbed ENSEMBLE, will enroll 60,000 patients worldwide, making it the largest Phase III study of a Covid-19 vaccine to date. J&J said the candidate achieved positive interim results in a Phase I/IIa study, which will be published “imminently.” There’s a possibility that the first batches will be ready for potential emergency use in early 2021, according to the biotech.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Vas Narasimhan (AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Still held down by clin­i­cal hold, No­var­tis' Zol­gens­ma falls fur­ther be­hind Bio­gen and Roche as FDA asks for a new piv­otal study

Last October, the FDA slowed down Novartis’ quest to extend its gene therapy to older spinal muscular atrophy patients by slapping a partial hold on intrathecal administration. Almost a year later, the hold is still there, and regulators are adding another hurdle required for regulatory submission: a new pivotal confirmatory study.

The new requirement — which departs significantly from Novartis’ prior expectations — will likely stretch the path to registration beyond 2021, when analysts were expecting a BLA submission. That could mean more time for Biogen to reap Spinraza revenues and Roche to ramp up sales of Evrysdi in the absence of a rival.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Patrick Enright, Longitude co-founder (Longitude)

As its biotechs hit the pan­dem­ic ex­it, Lon­gi­tude rais­es $585M for new neu­ro, can­cer, ag­ing and or­phan-fo­cused fund

The years have been kind to Longitude Capital. This year, too.

A 2006 spinout of Pequot Capital, its founders started their new firm just four years before the parent company would go under amid insider trading allegations. Their first life sciences fund raised $325 million amid the financial crisis, they added a second for $385 million and then in, 2016, a third for $525 million. In the last few months, the pandemic biotech IPO boom netted several high-value exits from those funds, as Checkmate, Vaxcyte, Inozyme and Poseida all went public.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Scoop: ARCH’s Bob Nelsen is back­ing an mR­NA up­start that promis­es to up­end the en­tire man­u­fac­tur­ing side of the glob­al busi­ness

For the past 2 years, serial entrepreneur Igor Khandros relied on a small network of friends and close insiders to supply the first millions he needed to fund a secretive project to master a new approach to manufacturing mRNA therapies.

Right now, he says, he has a working “GMP-in-a-box” prototype for a new company he’s building — after launching 3 public companies — which plans to spread this contained, precise manufacturing tech around the world with a set of partners. He’s raised $60 million, recruited some prominent experts. And not coincidentally, he’s going semi-public with this just as a small group of pioneers appears to be on the threshold of ushering in the world’s first mRNA vaccines to fight a worldwide pandemic.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

News brief­ing: PureTech plans Nas­daq de­but with sec­ondary list­ing; GoodRx prices $725M IPO

London Stock Exchange-listed PureTech Health announced Wednesday that it’s looking to extend to Nasdaq. But due to its “strong cash position,” the biotech says it isn’t issuing any new shares in the potential secondary listing.

The company’s shares closed at £256.50 Tuesday on the London Stock Exchange. Its candidate LYT-100 is currently in Phase I development for various indications, including lymphatic flow disorders and fibrotic and inflammatory disorders. PureTech is expecting a Phase Ib readout in lymphatic flow disorders later this year, and is also planning to launch a Phase II study for the drug to treat respiratory conditions experienced after Covid-19.